Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Some of the statistics in that article are insane! half of gay men currently in their 20's will be positive in 30 years? 70% for black men? what i'm kind of confused about it how they can say that 60% of young people who are positive dont know. if they dont know, then how do the people conducting the survery know?

Some of the statistics in that article are insane! half of gay men currently in their 20's will be positive in 30 years? 70% for black men? what i'm kind of confused about it how they can say that 60% of young people who are positive dont know. if they dont know, then how do the people conducting the survery know?

The rate that a given number in an age group that test positive for HIV on a consistent basis can give you a pretty accurate picture of who in the same demographic will test positive for HIV in the future .

I have to believe that these idiots in DC will come up with some kind of solution after all this is said and done. I think eventually the American people will have to stand up and make a stink about it, which will set a fire under their asses. I'm talking about both parties, not just one of the other. It seems both parties are to blame for this stupid issue.

What's all the fuss, most of us who have already grandfathered into the AIDS/meds system of disability along with other failing health issues for the last 10 to 15 yrs. or more (who cannot work anymore)

probably won't notice much of any anything at all

sounds like another Washington fear mongering tactic to me

HUGS

DEN

Are you kidding me? I guess it's no fuss if it doesn't effect you. I've had AIDS longer than you and I'm not "grandfathered" into the system. I work, pay the premium for basic insurance that doesn't cover my meds. I am dependent on ADAP to cover the cost of my life-saving meds. I wish I didn't have to work and had all my basic needs covered by the government but that's not reality for most poz folks. Jesus.

then maybe you haven't been reading enough about the sequester cuts to HIV-related services and many other health care, housing and food (ie meals on wheels) services. Not to mention the reduced testing! As medical science suggests TEST and treat is the way to go, we now won't have the money to test or treat.

As a result of sequestration, ADAP will be cut by approximately $77 million and 15,708 clients will lose access to crucial life-saving drugs.

Enhanced HIV testing funding will be cut by$5.4 million. The number of HIV tests administered will be greatly reduced and approximately 412 HIV positive people will not be identified in each fiscal year.

While sequestration will have an impact on all ADAPs, as illustrated above, it will have a significant impact on individuals living in the South. As of June 2012, southern states accounted for 33 percent of all ADAP clients served; through sequestration, up to half of the clients that will lose ADAP services reside in southern states. States may be forced to disenroll clients currently served by ADAP due to a lack of other funding sources to mitigate the effects of federal budget cuts. Moreover, to reduce the burden of this impact on people already on ADAP, states may be unable to accommodate any new clients and, therefore, forced to close enrollment and establish waiting lists for these new clients.

amfAR and NMAC have recalculated estimates of the human impact of budget sequestration on the response to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic. The new figures are based on January 2013 changes to the sequestration law, and reflect a revised estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of a 5.3% across-the-board funding cut to most non-defense discretionary programs.1 Our original issue brief on this topic is available here....As a result of sequestration:

10,130 Americans living with HIV/AIDS will lose access to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), which provides life-saving medication to low-income PLWHA. Recent research has shown that, in addition to saving and improving the lives of PLWHA, HIV treatment reduces the risk of transmitting HIV to an uninfected partner by 96 percent.

More than 6,760 people of color would lose access to ADAP services.

...

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has been at the forefront of AIDS research for 30 years, would lose $163 million in AIDS research funding. 297 AIDS research grants would go unfunded, including 32 specifically funding AIDS vaccine research. It is estimated that AIDS research funded by the NIH has led to a gain of more than 14.4 million life-years globally since 1995.

Over $41.7 million would be cut from state and local HIV prevention efforts funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including efforts targeting young people and adults at high risk of infection. Among other programs, prevention efforts support testing to help identify the 18 percent of Americans living with HIV who do not know they are infected.

have you been able to catch "How to Survive a Plague"? It's a good reminder of how the Feds once let AIDS run amuck and how it was a major public health crisis killing off a lot of our friends.

If baffles me a lot why more people on ADAP or receiving other HIV services don't still fight the way they used to. All it could take is one major disaster, one major fiscal crisis (hello, sequester) and people will go without those services, without those meds (It's not like we didn't already have people dying while on the ADAP waiting lists in the last five years.), and we may see sad history come around once again.

Seroconverted: Early 80sTested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. Last regimen: Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky )Past regimensFun stuff (in the past): HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

It's the president's discretion on what programs he cuts he has the authority so don't go blaming anyone else. If he cuts ADAP, then he cut it, no one else.

the sequester was a plan by Congress and the President to avoid the "fiscal cliff". (By the way CONGRESS spends the money, not the President.) There is little to no discretion to cuts in the sequester. The sequester is about across-the-board cuts to all departments and spending.

Each federal agency will implement its cuts differently, on its own timeline, and the White House Office of Management and Budget tells ABC News it does not have a calendar for what cuts will happen when....is Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will submit a report to Congress. Federal agencies, which have already been drafting their sequestration plans according to OMB, will begin operating at reduced funding levels. The cuts will happen.

those were facts from the agencies being cut, discussing how they are cutting their budgets. Those are not my opinions; those are facts from other sources. Nor are those my opinions that the government didn't do anything for a long time and allowed people with HIV to die during the start of the AIDS epidemic. That is not my opinion either; that's history.

the sequester was a plan by Congress and the President to avoid the "fiscal cliff". (By the way CONGRESS spends the money, not the President.) There is little to no discretion to cuts in the sequester. The sequester is about across-the-board cuts to all departments and spending.

There is where you are wrong Mike, Obama does have the authority. Mike what department does ADAP fall under? Are you saying there is not any other programs that can't be adjusted and it automatically goes to ADAP to be slashed. Come on we aren't going to have an Armageddon. How do you make financial adjustments household? The government needs to do the very same thing.

the sequester was a plan by Congress and the President to avoid the "fiscal cliff". (By the way CONGRESS spends the money, not the President.) There is little to no discretion to cuts in the sequester. The sequester is about across-the-board cuts to all departments and spending.

The sequestration was something that Obama demanded and promised he would veto any bill back in 2011 that didn't include sequestration. So it was his demand that congress add it into the bill at the time, and by signing the bill he agreed with the proposed cuts. So it is completely clear the implementation of the sequestration came as a direct result of a demand that he made so that he could appear tough to the American people. Now this lying S.O.B. is trying to put the blame on someone else? Perhaps the media could simply play this video from 2011 to show the real truth:

There is where you are wrong Mike, Obama does have the authority. Mike what department does ADAP fall under? Are you saying there is not any other programs that can't be adjusted and it automatically goes to ADAP to be slashed. Come on we aren't going to have an Armageddon. How do you make financial adjustments household? The government needs to do the very same thing.

If he can bypass congress to spend, he can bypass them to cut as well. Anyone remember when he did this without going through congress:

President Barack Obama has signed a waiver to remove curbs on funding to the Palestinian Authority, declaring the aid to be “important to the security interests of the United States.”

A $192 million aid package was frozen by the US Congress after the Palestinians moved to gain statehood at the United Nations last September.

But in a memo sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, published by the White House, the president said it was appropriate to release funds to the authority, which administers the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In signing the waiver, Obama instructed Clinton to inform Congress of the move, on the grounds that “waiving such prohibition is important to the national security interests of the United States.”

There is where you are wrong Mike, Obama does have the authority. Mike what department does ADAP fall under? Are you saying there is not any other programs that can't be adjusted and it automatically goes to ADAP to be slashed. Come on we aren't going to have an Armageddon. How do you make financial adjustments household? The government needs to do the very same thing.

The Congress sets and passes the budget, not the President. He can send a suggested budget to Congress that must be voted on and passed. You do know there is three equal branches of government? I hope the President doesn't adjust your government paid for benefits.

The sequestration was something that Obama demanded and promised he would veto any bill back in 2011 that didn't include sequestration. So it was his demand that congress add it into the bill at the time, and by signing the bill he agreed with the proposed cuts. So it is completely clear the implementation of the sequestration came as a direct result of a demand that he made so that he could appear tough to the American people. Now this lying S.O.B. is trying to put the blame on someone else? Perhaps the media could simply play this video from 2011 to show the real truth:

The congress makes the budget and the president has the authority to make allocations. He is not able to go above that budget set by congress.

The President actually starts the budgeting process. Congress amends it, and the President signs or vetos their version of the budget. (allocations are Congressional changes in the budget)

Quote

The House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of the President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the bill becomes law. Otherwise, Congress must pass another bill to avoid a shutdown of at least part of the federal government.

Just remember when you're sitting around your kitchen table making "adjustments" your sole existence is provided by the government, i.e. the American taxpayer. You always fail to mention that fact.

Do you know if I'm working or not? That is where you always stick your foot in your ass. You attack when people don't fall for your BS. What a joke. By the way I have worked now for some time so update that in your little brain. You'll have to find something that you are actually knowledgeable about to attack me with.

Do you know if I'm working or not? That is where you always stick your foot in your ass. You attack when people don't fall for your BS. What a joke. By the way I have worked now for some time so update that in your little brain. You'll have to find something that you are actually knowledgeable about to attack me with.

I'm not going to argue with you about this, but you deceive people when you don't admit that you are on disability and receive government assistance. No shame in that. I'm glad you're healthy enough to work and happy that people on assistance can live a healthy, productive life. I'll send the President your heartfelt thanks.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Hey guys , I have a sneaky feeling that we are not going to be able to solve the nations financial problems here on the forum today . Lets keep the conversation congenial so we can save this thread and the nation from the dustbin .

I see Ann just posted but since I took the time to write this Im throwing my thoughts in also .

the president proposes and congress disposes is how it's supposed to work with our money that the government has to work with. if the president had/has specific directions that he can decide in the sequester it's because congress gave it to him. in additon with regard to this specific sequester if he had that much discrection then why would the senate cons propose to give him more discretion, that was voted on on thursday by the senate. it failed so the president is stuck with what was in the original sequester document. perhaps we should all read the sequester to see where the actual cuts take place or not. i'm worried about the hiv related stuff just as much as anyone but i also take everything on the news with multiple grains of salt.

as of the last ADAP Watch list monitoring report on February 14, 2013 there are still 63 individuals in 4 states who are medically eligible and financially eligible for assistance to get ARVs and yet are on a waiting list for these meds.

regardless of whose fault the sequestration is, when the cuts come through (whether to ADAP or HIV testing or housing/food for HIV positive people) the results will be a big issue for America and the HIV epidemic. I would imagine that just in the past as ACT UP had to take a stance to fight for HIV positive people, that HIV positive people will have to rise up once more to get proper funding and action from the federal government to deal with the situation. (shoot! here in the South we're still fighting to get adequate treatment, testing and prevention funding - see that other thread about that topic - and that's before the sequester) History has shown (as evidenced in the "how to survive a plague" documentary or by the simple fact of there currently being waiting lists) that funding, caring for, and treating HIV people has never been a high priority of the US government - unless it was demanded by the people.

Having lived 30 years with HIV and struggling to get medical care or navigate the health care system in America I see this debate as something much bigger than this current crisis .

I hope for a day when we stop blaming politicians for what they haven't done or what they did do and except the fact the are just as responsible for sending them to Washington in the first place .

When and if the day comes that its no longer acceptable for the sick to go untreated or forced into poverty for life saving treatment and medicine then perhaps things will change for the better . I cant help but feel silence still equals death and if we passively except the status quo then what we get is what we elect .

and health benefits of the whole lot of them entitled politicians if they cannot do what we voted them to do.

in the 1st place

HUGS

DEN

That's just it, they are doing what people voted for them to do. That's Jeff's point. In a democracy a politician can only do what their constituents will tolerate. A large portion of America (Specifically Southern America, sorry but its true) are voting for these loons.

Politicians are only in it to win it, and most of them are career politicians anyways

case-in-point here is this, you can blame whoever you want, and point as many

fingers as you like, fact is, if most of them had to live in poverty and enlist in a

very broken health care system, like most have to, trust me, things would

really change for the better VERY FAST, I think they should cut the pay

and health benefits of the whole lot of them entitled politicians if they cannot do what we voted them to do.

in the 1st place

HUGS

DEN

That's the thing Den , nobody has held politicians feet to the fire except the tea party and the NRA and of course corporation's . Im certainly not a fan of those organization's but us progressives should take a clue from their play book and maybe they will listen a bit closer . In all fairness there isn't really a consensus among most Americans on what could or should be done to address the issues on health care because the facts have been so muddied up by all the ones with a dog in the fight or special interest .

This thread is a perfect example of how the political class has Americans at each others throats. Some of you champion to save the programs that are so dear, while others seem to want to cast blame. To be honest, who cares how this all happened. If everybody could just stop "shouting" past each other, both here and society in general, we might actually address some of our most pressing issues.

That is the problem. You cannot address important issues with the current repub party. You have a Republican party that is hijacked by a minority. They are in districts, where they are not afraid of losing in a general election. They are afraid of a tea-party, primary challenge. So, they have to act bat shit crazy. I agree with what Bill Maher said last night. Tom Delay, Newt, or Dole would have taken the 2 to 1 cuts to revenue deal. The current repubs all said they would not even take 10 to 1.

They just met for a conference, and didn't invite Gov Christie, obviously because he praised the president after Super-storm Sandy. Christie is a conservative, but not whacky enough, I guess. They said the attendees were the face of the future, but they invited all the oldies. I think latest polling puts the repubs at a 26% approval. I guess they figure the rigged districting will keep them viable for some time. I've read articles, where some think they don't even care about the presidency anymore. They figure they will continue to have trouble getting the White House, unless a Dem really fucks up. But, they can keep the House and maybe the Senate. They just have to prevent a primary challenge, which could tip it to a Dem, as we've seen several times recently.

As long as they are controlled by a minority in their party, they will continue to do exactly what they're doing. They know the repubs who favor a bipartisan approach will be with them on election day. It will be up to fair-minded repub voters to send a hard message, by not voting for the status quo.

You can't blame Bush on this, Obama owns it. It can go smooth or Obama can make you suffer.

Absolutely, after all, republicans didn't refuse to raise the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011, for the first time in history. They didn't cause a self-inflicted credit downgrade for the US for the first time in history. Republicans never blocked any of the tax increases that Obama offered, in order to close the deficit.Obama would have come up with the sequester entirely on his own, regardless of the composition of Congress. It's all his !

Seriously, get your head of the sand where it's been buried for far too long.

Act up and all of us, even those who aren't on ADAP (as I am not, nor is my partner anymore) or deriving any government benefit ; and dare I say, the entire LGBT community, should be raising hell all over the media right now, every single day, occupying the House, and calling the tea party republicans for what they actually are - murderers, every single day.

This isn't just a domestic issue either. There are quite a few people who will lose their PEPFAR funding and thus lose their meds and die.

The republicans in the house should all be impeached and tried for criminal negligence over this, nothing less will do.

After that, they should all be replaced with people who actually want to govern, rather than repeatedly inflict pain on their constituents.

This thread is a perfect example of how the political class has Americans at each others throats. Some of you champion to save the programs that are so dear, while others seem to want to cast blame. To be honest, who cares how this all happened. If everybody could just stop "shouting" past each other, both here and society in general, we might actually address some of our most pressing issues.

Joe

Thanks Joe -- I usually get trampled when I start talking like this -- but I think you have hit on the biggetst problem of all. Too many, politicians and citizens, are more concerned with getting "their way" than looking for actual solutions. NEITHER SIDE wants true compromise, as it could make them look "weak" politically. Nevermind the impossiblity of admitting that the "other side" has any good points. The right says the left is unbending, the left says the right won't compromise, but what they are both saying is closer to, my way or the highway. Meanwhile it is beginning to resemble Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns.

We must make smart cuts -- some of which will, and should, cause some pain for everyone (we can't expect someone else to do all the suffering required to fix our fiscal mess).We must make some smart reforms for SS and Medicare -- not eviserate, but reform to save there long term viability.We must make some smart Defense cuts -- the current cuts aren't going to demolish our military -- the scare mongering from the politicians (Dems and Repubs), as well as the media is particularly insane in this area.We must find more revenue -- particularly by cutting corporate welfare, and reworking our entire tax code. We could probably lower tax rates and still increase revenue if this is done right.

Anyway -- the bottom line -- we have to all open our minds and our ears. The other side (whichever you choose to call the other side) has some good ideas -- we just have to be listening for them.

This false equivalency drives me crazy. What your saying Mike is pretty much what the President has proposed, a balanced approach. Please give me an example of where this mysterious "far left" is refusing to negotiate? The Republicans have categorically denied any more legislation that would include new revenue.